On the Web

Profile Information

I'm planning to use Facebook ads for recruitment. What attracts me is the targeting: I can get people with X qualifications in academic subject Y, between the ages of 20 and 27, in country Z. Where else could I get such specificity? I don't want anyone outside a very narrow range of people, and (it seems) Facebook may deliver.

I would add that we have no interest in getting Facebook "Likes". We just want to deliver appropriate leads to our job advertising page.

I'm wondering why more people don't use Facebook for such highly targeted lead-generation?

Between November 10 and November 14 there was a significant drop in pages-per-visit on our large news-style site. This fall was from around 2.4 pages per visit to around 1.95 pages per visit. Visits themselves have remained at exactly the same level. The effect has persisted up till now.

No significant changes to the site were made around that time.

Google Page Rank dropped at about the same time from PR6 to PR5. This is a high authority site, with 80% original content http://www.globalpropertyguide.com

Sorry, not persuasive. News sites have increasingly longer and longer Home Pages. The reason? People tend to scroll down, more than they click through to following pages. So the determination has been made that there is a higher chance per link, of each link being clicked, on a 600-link Home Page, than if that page's links are split over 3 pages.

Plus of course in juice terms, 1 page is more efficient, because of the 'lossyness' already discussed.

So for 2 excellent reasons, the number of links per page is rising.

Finally, these links are provided primarily for navigational convenience, to get people to content. And for that they work well.

Your advice is tailored to commercial sites which require linkjuice sculpting. Fine, but you need to say so explicitly. The advice does not apply to news sites. Which is why in practice none of them do what you suggest.

b) pass juice along a chain, from page (a) to page (b) to page (c) to page (d). Choice a) is OF COURSE the most efficient way of passing PR, as it involves only 1 link from the source and is less 'lossy'. So why would he condemn it?

Second: look at any news site, the BBC, Herald Tribune, Bloomberg, Businessweek, Seeking Alpha, etc, they ALL have quotients of 200 or 300 links per page (500 or 600 links per page for Business Insider and Huffington Post).

Now let us think about that. Are these high ranking, well-managed, industry-leading sites all staffed by dolts who don't know what they are doing?